Talk:2010 Christmas Island boat disaster

Title

I don't have any problems with the title of this article. The article needs to have a title and this is as good as any I guess. I do, however, have a problem with including this title in the text of the article as some sort of "official name" of the disaster. Use of this title in the text is original research and should not be done. Until such time as some sort of name for the event arises, either officially such as SIEV X or unofficially but widely adopted such as Black Saturday bushfires, Wikipedia should not be seen to sanctioning some sort of definitive name for the event.

See WP:Stop bolding everything for a more cogent explanation for why bolding a title is inappropriate for this article at this stage. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

An extract from WP:BOLDITIS "It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly-accepted name, or the only acceptable title, when it is actually just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage". This surely applies here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Time

There are some creeping credibility edit issues - the local time in the first 2 paras does not gel - some attention to detail please - the edit I caught the time sequence with was from http://www.customs.gov.au/site/101216MediaRelease.asp - SatuSuro 12:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the boat sank before it hit the rocks...24.210.156.170 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of asylum seekers

When somebody says that a boat of refugees has sunk, the first thing I wonder is "from where". I think we should move the list of originating countries up to the first paragraph if not the first sentence — especially once we know for sure where each passenger was from. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 04:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It may take a while before "we know for sure where each passenger was from". Generally these boats reach Australia from Indonesia, but the passengers are typically originally from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. They often don't carry papers. It may have been a mixed boatload. I can envision a scenario where we may never know the original homes of some of the dead and missing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, our Wiki definition of asylum seekers as people fleeing their country of origin "because of war and violence, or out of fear of persecution" pinpoints to some specific category of countries. But I wonder if many of these poor victims are rather economic migrants, specially as human trafficking appears to be involved. If that is the case, our labeling of them as asylum seekers might be too narrow. What a tricky matter... Aldo L (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that shows a misunderstanding of the term asylum seeker. Anyone is entitled to seek asylum upon reaching the shores of another country. That includes those who pay people smugglers. It is the universal approach of people who arrive on Australian territory in that way. Whether asylum is subsequently granted is an issue decided at a later time. Of course it is theoretically possible that someone on that boat was planning to declare some other reason for catching that boat (a holiday maybe?), but unlikely. And obviously we can't ask the dead passengers what their plans were. But, until evidence to the contrary arises, there is little risk in using the term asylum seeker. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just refer to them as Passengers, as we would in an aircraft disaster, if no common ground on the victims motivation can be reached. If nothing else, they were certainly that. Calistemon (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of "asylum seeker" requires some level of original research, since we don't know the intent of the passengers on board the boat. For all we know, they might simply have been seeking to jump the immigration queues. It's not until they reach shore and formally apply for asylum that they can be called asylum seekers. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why where 12 of the victims buried in Sydney?

The Sydney funeral of 12 of the victims, and associated government costs, have proven a topical issue in Australia in February 2011. This article should include some information regarding this. 59.167.126.21 (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll try and write something today. --Canley (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend being very careful with the slant of what is written. It became a "topical" issue because an opposition politician tried to make it a point-scoring political issue. Find some excellent souces (more than one) and stick very closely to what they say. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Disaster" is POV

I suggest that the word "disaster" is non-neutral and should not be used in the article title. Possibly "Sinking of SIEV-221" or similar would be more neutral.

Related question: should this article be listed in List of accidents and disasters by death toll and/or List of maritime disasters? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with disaster because there were mass casualties. Listing on those pages, yes. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how 'disaster' could be seen to be non-neutral given that it's what's happened, and the term has been used in both the tabloid and 'serious' media. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)